Flavorless 3e- Advantage- players

[jasamcarl]

The game is flavorless as written. Many actions, including RP actions, can be solved with a simple roll. The rules do not encourage roleplaying, rather, they encourage building a house of numbers.

How many times have people referred to their kick tail numbers to show what a good character they have? I have heard that far more often lately than I have heard about what they have done. I hear a lot about "builds" and being "effective" than I hear them describe the person behind the concept.

In a video game, I am concerned about what "build" grants me the greatest bonus and the best abilities.

I say that there can be a better mix. 3e is probably the greatest DnD game design ever created, but some of the soul of the game has been lost.

Effects should not be all about the numbers, conditions should not be about the minus to this stat of that ability alone.

That is my point. I am only advocating that the rules can be sexed up. They do not have to be so bland and generic. I think the designers have lost sight of that in the mad rush for cool powers and how to increase stat x or skill y.

That is why I wrote game rules for my world in the first place.

And you cannot judge my skill as a GM from comments on messageboards. The comments may be how I would like the game to be, but not how I play the game.

However, I can judge 3e because I have read the rules, played the system, and discussed it with a variety of people. You may feel differently about the game and I am not telling you how to play the game, however, I am providing my thoughts about parts of the system that disatisfy me.

Getting defensive and lashing out with personal attacks does not help anyone see a different viewpoint.

Again you repeat the same weak claim. Look back over my prior posts. As I stated before, the game doesn't have to have copious amounts of flavor text to have flavor. The way the gameplay changes from low to high level, corresponding with the changes in character abilities, very much evokes a type of high heroic fantasy where the characters are quite strong, but have to deal with greater responsibilities. Note how a 20th level character is not rewarded for killing CR 1 opponents. There is a balance reason for this as well, but the point is that THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. The fact that the characters are so durable is flavor in this case. This is a dynamic flavor which heavily suggests a type of story for those who wish to latch on, but can also be played as a game with a win/scoring condition (i.e. level). The fact that it can do both is its virtue. What you seem to want is a series of kludges. The game does this without alot of fluffy prose or dictates on exactly how to roleplay, something which always seems to benefit the gms in imposing his ideal of the game over the players. I'm sorry if that seems to subtle for you.

And no, you are being hypocritical. You cannot say that i'm going on an abstraction when judging the type of game you run and then state how much flavor is evoked by the game for any given group in any given game based upon YOUR individual reading of the rules along with that of a non-random, unscientific sample of people. And, on a different issue of hypocricy, I won't even go towards the 'don't get defensive statement'.

And let me again be clear. I don't care about your houserules. They are not the issue with me. I've barely glanced at them. I'm addressing your larger viewpoint that 3e as it stands is flavorless.

 

[jasamcarl]

If ever I have seen a perfect example of 'pot calling the kettle black' it is here. Not only did you start the insults, you have been more severe and persistant- yet you think it's his fault? What color is the sky in your world?

Though to get back to topic- the game is rather more videogame like than pervious editions. I can accept that, and I don't really find it to be objectionable.

You know I rather like playing a character who doesn't get mutilated and remain that way. I guess that's a videogamey attitude. I rather just like playing to have fun.

Which has more sales the RPG industry or the videogame industry?
If you were trying to market something in the (oh the humanity!) attempt to make money, what course would you take? Cater to a small, and not terribly dynamic niche market, or would you try to grow a market segment by adopting traits of a successful product category?

I'd say it is self evident as to what WoTC did. I certainly don't fault them for it. Keep in mind the sucess of 3rd Ed was such with the D20 license that many other compatable worlds have been spawned which do cater to different flavors.

Now as for players whining about flavor changes- I have to sympathize with BelenUmeria. I'm playing in a game which has just started and is in a world of the DM's creation. The magic system is completely different from stock D&D (and since I'm the rules junkie the DM decided to let me cook it up). I worked with the guy who is actually playing the wizard to develop the new system, so he's OK with it, and finds it to be cool. I still have the expand the spell list some more, but it will happen. One player, however, just won't stop complaining about the new spellcasting. I find this extremely irritating since he isn't even playing the caster.

He seems to have an inherent beef with D&D though, so I don't know if his whining counts under flavor whining. He appears to be a disgruntled Rolemaster player who hates the world because nobody wants to play his game.

buzzard

Hey, I was just sayiing that I forgive him for being defensive. I would argue that I never outright insulted him until after the prick comment. Up until that point, i was simply stating my observations which to him were somewhat hurtful. I plead innocent.

 

[WizarDru]

Actually, I would be VERY unhappy if I sat down at the game table and played a game like Knights of the Old Republic. A video game is not something I associate with a good game of DnD.

Current DnD leads to a video game mentality. You do not have to care about your characters, every injury and dilemma can be magically taken away, and you can have a get out of death free card.

If you have someone in your group with a video game mentality, then you're in for some boring games. The person will be obsessed by numbers and powerups, get mad if a condition lasts too long, and will RP only long enough to get to the next battle.

Heck, they would probably want the GM to just have "cut scenes." That way, they cannot be bothered with roleplaying.

Video games and roleplaying games are entirely different animals and using the mentality of one to play in another is just...bad....

Well, clearly we have different ideas about video games...either you and I played KOTOR very differently, or we interpeted it very differently. However, they're two different animals entirely: a single-layer d20 CRPG with a lot of freedom versus a PnP RPG. If you didn't become attached to some of your NPCs in KOTOR, then I'd wager you weren't interested in doing so, not that it doesn't happen. As far as I know, only one of the NPCs in KOTOR actually needs to make it all the way through the game...and she isn't with you continually.

If your contention is that CRPGs and video games remove from the experience by allowing you to load a save game, I'd say that it's a question of taste, but that there are solid design and mechanical reasons for the way such issues are handled in video games, and those reasons are directly related to the enjoyability of the game. Many of these rules don't apply to an RPG...but then, I don't accept that D&D has been made like a video game. They are different design pursuits, with different audiences (primarily single-player versus a social multi-player) and have different limitations, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

Many of the so-called penalties of previous editions were not really penalties at all. Few characters survived long enough to worry about the problems of aging from haste, for example...and it certainly wasn't a problem to elves. Few campaigns lasted long enough for players to reach double-digit levels, IME. WoTC's market research bore this out, generally speaking.

Now, setting aside the issue of some people enjoy role-playing in a different fashion than you do (i.e. they want to put sword to monster, and grab his loot...and that's all), I'm still not sure where the idea that there are no lingering effects comes from, or that it's particularly indemic to 3e or 3.5e.

Min-maxing is hardly a new term, nor is the idea of building a superlative character. If you think it is, then I guess we'll just agree that our experiences have been very different. I can recall with clarity many, many instances of people in the early 80s bragging about their characters, their stats and how they manipulated the system in some way. "Tomb of Horrors" was Gygax's direct response to such behavior, in fact. "Knights of the Dinner Table" is solidly based in such lore, and a classic example of such behavior...that's what makes it funny. If you mean to say that 3e encourages such behavior, I'd disagree, and merely point out that increased options give those so inclined more to work with, as opposed to pointing them in that direction. In 1e, a thief didn't get to choose to be better or worse at a particular skill set...his abilities were set by his level, and little else. In 3e, a rogue can choose to be a con man or a pickpocket, a master of disguise or what have you. I consider that the opportunity to create more flavor, not deprive it of same.

In short, I haven't found that any game system affects the nature of those playing it so much as the reverse is true. A powergamer may find weaknesses in one system more than another...but if the rest of his group doesn't enjoy that style of play, that's the problem. D&D was written to accomadate their tastes, mine and yours, all at once. The system should not be providing the 'sexy' parts...that's what world settings and DMs are for, IMHO.

As for the issue of solving certain interactions with a single die roll...well, that's an entirely different debate, and one that's existed for a long time, as well.

 

[jasper]

….Current DnD leads to a video game mentality. You do not have to care about your characters, every injury and dilemma can be magically taken away, and you can have a get out of death free card….
So you are playing first edition still?

…If you have someone in your group with a video game mentality, then you're in for some boring games. The person will be obsessed by numbers and powerups, get mad if a condition lasts too long, and will RP only long enough to get to the next battle…. True for any edition any rpg.

….The game is flavorless as written. Many actions, including RP actions, can be solved with a simple roll. The rules do not encourage roleplaying, rather, they encourage building a house of numbers… Again I have forgotten what edition you are playing? Of course the first edition had some nice flavor text.

Any Dm can add to the game. Hey I used to have magic missle machine guns, dragons as head of spy rings, combat booted grandmas, ninjas, etc and this was my first edition game.

 

[Belen]

….Current DnD leads to a video game mentality. You do not have to care about your characters, every injury and dilemma can be magically taken away, and you can have a get out of death free card….
So you are playing first edition still?

…If you have someone in your group with a video game mentality, then you're in for some boring games. The person will be obsessed by numbers and powerups, get mad if a condition lasts too long, and will RP only long enough to get to the next battle…. True for any edition any rpg.

….The game is flavorless as written. Many actions, including RP actions, can be solved with a simple roll. The rules do not encourage roleplaying, rather, they encourage building a house of numbers… Again I have forgotten what edition you are playing? Of course the first edition had some nice flavor text.

Any Dm can add to the game. Hey I used to have magic missle machine guns, dragons as head of spy rings, combat booted grandmas, ninjas, etc and this was my first edition game.

I will concede that point. The original intent of the post was that they were complaining about the changes and would rather "stick to the rules."

 

[Belen]

In short, I haven't found that any game system affects the nature of those playing it so much as the reverse is true. A powergamer may find weaknesses in one system more than another...but if the rest of his group doesn't enjoy that style of play, that's the problem. D&D was written to accomadate their tastes, mine and yours, all at once. The system should not be providing the 'sexy' parts...that's what world settings and DMs are for, IMHO.

Well, you are right in a broad sense. However, I see it like written law versus case law.

We have all this material that says that the rules are god and players are supreme. However, the real law says that the GM has the perogative to change what he believes necessary.

However, most of what is published goes against that grain.

Yeah, the GM gets to choose what is allowed in the game, but it is a catch 22. It is difficult to read all the materials thrown at your by players. Invariably, you slip and fall.

I just wish that the rules were more permissive in allowing for change.

 

[Elf Witch]

After reading through all these posts and trying to sift through the insults to get to the point being made I finally had to say something. I agree that 3.5 tends to lend itself to a video game feel. And that so much depends on how good your stats are and why you should take this multiclass because it gives you an impossible to fail will save or whatever.

I get tired to of the word suboptimal. I am tired of the moaning of DMs about players wanting a get out of death free card while bragging of the TPKs they have had happened or whinning about my players don't really care about their characters and yet expect them to suck it up when the character dies and the house rules make raise dead alomst impossible.

I have seen groups playing DnD and all they are doing is skilling monsters and having a grand old time and they can't wait until the next session.

I have played in and read some story hours that involve deep immersive style role play with great character development and thses groups are having as much fun as the above group and they playing with the same basic rules.


This is what house rules are good for helping each group adapt the generic feel of the game to suit them.

I have heard that a lot of players don't like it when the DM does this and it makes me wonder why. Is is that you don't trust the DM? Do you feel that the rules are being made to screw the player? I have always felt that you need to have some level of trust with your DM and if you can't trust him to make the fun fair and the rules equal between PCs and NPCs why would you want to play with this person.

Myself I won't play with DMs who are so called killer DMs who feel that their job is to kill the PCS and if they do they have won.

But then again I don't want to play with players who want everything to be handed to them on a silver platter and expect there to be two different rules sets for the PCs as opposed to the NPCs and of course the rules favor the PCs.

And yes I want the chance to bring back my character from death but it would be nice if there is some kind of role play involved after all death is a serious thing. How about a quest or some other effect.

Adding flavor to the game makes it so much more fun after awhile if you only play straight from the rules then it getc boring and stagnant you start playing the same type of characters fighting the same monsters with the same spells until it all runs together. And boredom sets in. It is why video games keep coming up with new games in a series because they realize after a while people are bored and want something new.

 

[Belen]

After reading through all these posts and trying to sift through the insults to get to the point being made I finally had to say something. I agree that 3.5 tends to lend itself to a video game feel. And that so much depends on how good your stats are and why you should take this multiclass because it gives you an impossible to fail will save or whatever.

I get tired to of the word suboptimal. I am tired of the moaning of DMs about players wanting a get out of death free card while bragging of the TPKs they have had happened or whinning about my players don't really care about their characters and yet expect them to suck it up when the character dies and the house rules make raise dead alomst impossible.

I have seen groups playing DnD and all they are doing is skilling monsters and having a grand old time and they can't wait until the next session.

I have played in and read some story hours that involve deep immersive style role play with great character development and thses groups are having as much fun as the above group and they playing with the same basic rules.


This is what house rules are good for helping each group adapt the generic feel of the game to suit them.

I have heard that a lot of players don't like it when the DM does this and it makes me wonder why. Is is that you don't trust the DM? Do you feel that the rules are being made to screw the player? I have always felt that you need to have some level of trust with your DM and if you can't trust him to make the fun fair and the rules equal between PCs and NPCs why would you want to play with this person.

Myself I won't play with DMs who are so called killer DMs who feel that their job is to kill the PCS and if they do they have won.

But then again I don't want to play with players who want everything to be handed to them on a silver platter and expect there to be two different rules sets for the PCs as opposed to the NPCs and of course the rules favor the PCs.

And yes I want the chance to bring back my character from death but it would be nice if there is some kind of role play involved after all death is a serious thing. How about a quest or some other effect.

Adding flavor to the game makes it so much more fun after awhile if you only play straight from the rules then it getc boring and stagnant you start playing the same type of characters fighting the same monsters with the same spells until it all runs together. And boredom sets in. It is why video games keep coming up with new games in a series because they realize after a while people are bored and want something new.

Me too. I am tired of fighting with my players in order to have a good game.

I could not say if it is players that do not trust a GM or if it is the players who have decided that the "rules" are god. I have a few that always say that they just want to "play by the rules." They have to look up the rule for every action and make sure it is done right.

In my case, they always argue about what COULD happen. They interpret any new rule in terms of how it could screw the players. Usually, I say, "have I ever done that to you?" They answer is always no, but they don't like it just because it COULD happen.

It bugs me.

 

[WizarDru]

However, most of what is published goes against that grain.

Yeah, the GM gets to choose what is allowed in the game, but it is a catch 22. It is difficult to read all the materials thrown at your by players. Invariably, you slip and fall.

I just wish that the rules were more permissive in allowing for change.

What do you see as being a way to facilitate that more than is already present?

I see what you're driving at, particularly in the volume of potential materal that can arrive on a DM's door. As often as not, though, I see that as a failure of those who come after. I don't hold WotC responsible for Mongoose's failings, and I don't hold Mongoose responsible for a mistake on Green Ronin's part, and so forth.

I think the real issue may be convincing your players to either trust you more, and to explain to them that this is an important part of the feel of the world you are trying to create. The idea of the taint of negative energy has plenty of flavor, and it may just be that they need to understand that this isn't being done to inconvienence them, but is one of the ways you want to make your setting unique and distinct.

More importantly, you can sweeten the medicine, as it were, by telling them that all of these changes are probational. If they find that they get in the way of the game being fun, or if you find that they turn out to be unworkable in-game, that you will willingly rescind them, and find ways to compensate any negatively-affected players. It may be the precedent they fear more than the actual rules change.

 

[Belen]

What do you see as being a way to facilitate that more than is already present?

I see what you're driving at, particularly in the volume of potential materal that can arrive on a DM's door. As often as not, though, I see that as a failure of those who come after. I don't hold WotC responsible for Mongoose's failings, and I don't hold Mongoose responsible for a mistake on Green Ronin's part, and so forth.

I think the real issue may be convincing your players to either trust you more, and to explain to them that this is an important part of the feel of the world you are trying to create. The idea of the taint of negative energy has plenty of flavor, and it may just be that they need to understand that this isn't being done to inconvienence them, but is one of the ways you want to make your setting unique and distinct.

More importantly, you can sweeten the medicine, as it were, by telling them that all of these changes are probational. If they find that they get in the way of the game being fun, or if you find that they turn out to be unworkable in-game, that you will willingly rescind them, and find ways to compensate any negatively-affected players. It may be the precedent they fear more than the actual rules change.

Funny thing...I already do that. I think they like to complain because I have not stuck to my guns in the past and it allows them to take advantage of my being too nice.

Frankly, I am tired of it. I had a great time running a game at the last NC Game Day. Not one complaint and everyone seemed to have fun.

I miss that attitude. It is far more fun to just play rather than hear "he couldn't hit me! I know it because I built my class around not getting hit."

Every time something negative happens, they should not hit the books in order to a.) find am obscure rule to void what happened b.) interpret a rule that voids it.